IMBRA Court Documents Gonzales vs AODA vs European Connections vs Victim Feminism

Back to Home

Send email


IMBRA PDF (this is the radical feminist inspired International Marriage Broker Regulation Act)

Note that "Marriage Broker" is defined on page 14 as any for-profit social referral service where the "principal business is to provide introductions between Americans and foreigners". This left Match.com and other major American dating sites conveniently out of the definition.

The onorous part of the law is on page 12. This is the part that must be struck down because it interferes with people saying "hello." It says that an American man needs to be background checked before being allowed to communicate with a foreigner. Note that, in the 6 years that this garbage feminist law has been around, no marriage agency has ever seriously complied with it.
 

Read the outrageous new VAWA/IMBRA 2011 Proposed Law "Strenghtening" which is meant to try to get the US Justice Department and other agencies to actually try to enforce IMBRA, which has been ignored by everyone, especially those who say they follow it. Apparently the radical feminist US Congress doesn't like being ignored.

Buy and read up on Misandry to properly understand the documents on this page (and where the judges are coming from).

Here are the documents from the European Connections vs Gonzales Lawsuit Against IMBRA with attorney Ralph Goldberg, ESQ. Representing EUROPEAN CONNECTIONS & TOURS

The Northern District of Georgia case (European Connections & Tours vs Gonzales). The case dealt with "commercial speech" and the pathetic, anti-male judge Clarence Cooper reversed the Temporary Restraining Order he had placed on IMBRA by saying that getting a woman's contact information was the "equivalent of buying a gun". Judge Clarence Cooper is the perfect example of a White Knighter (mangina) betraying his fellow males by taking their God-given right away to ask a third party for a way to communicate with a woman who has already given blanket permission for her contact information to be given out. Clarence Cooper clearly bowed to feminist pressure in the hope that a Democrat President, like the future President Obama, would nominate him for the Supreme Court. He violated the very ideals he expressed in his TRO and without even referring to the TRO (because he'd have had to deny he felt that communication with other human beings is an inalienable right).


European Connections Brief (takes you to another website)
 
European Connections TRO (this restraining order expired in September after a six month run but the judge warned the government about prosecuting anyone because he would be out with his decision shortly)

 

Tahirih Justice Center 98 Page Rant Asking Georgia Judge to Uphold IMBRA (they are very clever, saying that Match.com may be next but there is precedent for Congress to make a "fix" in one area of an industry while not doing so in another.)

 (Also: Here you will find a huge ideological rant on age differences in adult dating. The US federal court system is being asked to specifically rule that age difference in dating is dangerous to the younger adult partner)


European Connections Cert (takes you to another website)

 

The Ohio Case (AODA vs Gonzales) Argues Personal Free Speech Violations. The trial was to take place in January 2007 but the marriage agencies in the coalition decided to drop the challenge when they realized that they could make more money from foolish men who would pay them to NOT give them the contact information of women they supposedly want to communicate with (white knighter fools believe that all women want to be anonymous to the men they communicate with simply because that is the norm in the paranoid US culture).

Here is the important initial complaint:

http://www.veteransabroad.com/complaint.htm

Here is the detailed request for a restraining order:

http://www.veteransabroad.com/troREQ.htm

 Ohio Federal Judge Thomas Rose in the AODA Case Denying TRO because "The Supreme Court has never explicitly recognized a fundamental liberty interest in Americans meeting foreigners for relationships." Bush-appointee Judge Thomas Rose needs to be forever damned for making this bizarre pro-government "Christian Feminist" social conservative White Knighter statement, which stands as an example of how the Bush Adminstration abused its male mandate and could no longer be trusted. Just as bad, the plaintiffs in this IMBRA case bowed out in the face of this outrageous and easily-overturned statement because they had started to realize that keeping men and women from actually meeting each other helped to increase marriage agency profits. They were like the turncoat Scottish nobles in the film "Braveheart."

 

 

 

Here is an interesting analysis

From Gary Bala, a prominent immigration attorney

(see GaryBala.com)

Date: January 05, 2006

Dear Clients, Friends and Supporters,

On January 05, 2006, President Bush signed into law the "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 ", H.R. 3402, Public Law No. 109-162, Title VIII, Subtitle D.

SEE:
White House Announcement

This law was attached to the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 up for renewal (passed by House and Senate). No public hearings were conducted, or any witnesses questioned. There was no statistical evidence submitted regarding International marriages, subsequent divorces or incidences of domestic violence. In fact, all informal studies suggest that inter-cultural couples enjoy a divorce rate percentage much smaller than the national domestic rate of 50%. More discussion will certainly result from this as individuals learn of this law's enactment.

For the text of the final version of the new law, see this link (in Adobe PDF Format):

International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005

The new law is called the "International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005 ". It requires all U.S. gentlemen who petition for a fiancee or spousal visa to provide more personal background information to Immigration Service and the State Department than ever before. It creates more restrictions in the process such as the number of fiancee or spousal petitions one can file, and how quickly a gentleman can file some visa petitions.

The law also requires a U.S. gentleman who wishes to meet his future fiancee or spouse through an "International Marriage Broker " to first submit extensive personal background information to the broker agency. The broker must then share that information with a future lady fiancee or spouse who must consent before the couple can start a communication and relationship.

WHAT EXACTLY ARE SOME OF THE PROVISIONS?

Some highlights of the new law:

1. NEW PETITION FORMS: New I-129F Fiancee and Spousal Visa petitions will require that the petitioner provide information on his criminal convictions for specified crimes, including violent offenses, domestic abuse and sexual assualt.

2. LIMIT ON NUMBER OF PETITIONS: Some petitioners will need to wait before they can successfully file for a fiancee visa. For example, if you filed two (2) or more fiancee visa petitions in the past, and at least one of them was approved, you must wait two (2) years from the filing date of the last approved petition before you can be successfully approved for another fiancee visa petition. (Exception: Under some circumstances, a petitioner may be able to obtain a "waiver ".)

3. MULTIPLE VISA PETITION DATABASE: Any person approved for a second visa petition or filing a third visa petition will be notified by Immigration that their case has been put into a special visa petition database which will track multiple petition filers and help identify those who might be abusing the system.

4. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PAMPHLET BROCHURE: Homeland Security will develop and make available on USCIS, State Department and Embassy websites a domestic violence pamphlet brochure in 14 languages and revised every 2 years which discusses the visa process, adjustment of status, conditional residency, marriage and visa fraud, domestic violence abuse rights, where and how to get help and other warnings and notifications.

5. CONSULAR INTERVIEW: The Consular Officer at interview will provide the visa applicant with a copy of the fiancee or spousal petition, and information and documents in her native language on any past marital and divorce history, past criminal history and past domestic violence history of the petitioner. The Consular Officer will also answer any questions about the domestic violence pamphlet brochure. The Consular Officer will also ask the visa applicant if the relationship was facilitated by an International Marriage Broker and , if so, confirm that the broker provided the applicant with information or documents about the petitioner's background.

6. REGULATION OF INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGE BROKERS (IMBs): IMBs are required to check the National Sex Offender public registry and state public registry for each specific U.S. client, and to gather mandatory background information and documents on that particular U.S. client's past criminal history, including prostitution offenses, past domestic violence history, past marital and divorce history, past visa petition history, ages of any children under age 18, and all states and countries where the U.S. client lived since age 18. IMBs must then provide that information to the foreign client lady in her native language and secure a signed, written consent from her before releasing her personal contact information to that specific U.S. client. The law imposes stiff civil and criminal penalties of up to $25,000 and up to 5 years in federal prison for each broker violation.

WHAT IF I DISAGREE WITH THIS LAW? HOW DO I COMPLAIN ABOUT IT?

Many gentlemen value their rights of privacy. Many gentlemen feel that this new law might unduly impinge on their rights of free speech and free association as U.S. citizens. Perhaps, the law may also intrude on equal protection rights of U.S. citizens who are required to provide extensive background data for foreign romances but not for domestic dating. If you wish to register and voice your concerns and complaints about this law, please contact your federal Senator's or local Congressman's office.

SEE THIS LINK FOR HELP:

Contacting the Congress

WHAT NEXT?

Needless to say, this new law mandates a significant change in the way the fiancee and spousal visa process will take place. It poses new challenges to brokers, U.S. clients and foreign clients alike in the international romance field. In the coming days and weeks, we will together monitor and follow the roll-out of this new law. Your comments, suggestions and ideas are welcome.

Good luck to all,

Gary Bala
USA Immigration Attorney
Pennsylvania USA
Web:
www.garybala.com
E-Mail: gb@garybala.com
Tel: 610-446-VISA (8472)

SOME MORE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ABOUT THE NEW LAW:

Q #1: What is the definition of "International Marriage Broker (IMB) "? Are there exceptions? Does this law apply to my favorite international correspondence Internet website?

Answer: IMB is defined very broadly in this law, as are all relevant terms in this law. (Bo Cooper, former INS General Counsel from several years ago, actually drafted this law; he sits on the board of directors of the feminist Tahirih Justice Center and intended to provide broad abuse protection to immigrant fiancées and brides.)

The definition of IMB (paraphrased) is any corporation, individual, or legal entity, whether or not existing under the laws of the U.S., who charges fees for providing dating, matrimonial, matchmaking or social referrals.

There are two exceptions: 1) cultural and religious matchmaking organizations which offer their services on a non-profit basis, and 2) a dating service whose principal business is not international dating and which charges comparable rates for comparable services to all individuals, men and women, domestic and foreign.

Your favorite international correspondence Internet website would be subject to this law, IF the exceptions enumerated above do not apply.


Q #2: How are the terms “U.S. client” and “Foreign National Client” defined? Does this law apply to women U.S. citizens who seek a male partner abroad through an IMB?

Answer: The definition of "U.S. client " is any U.S. citizen or other person who resides in the U.S. who makes a payment or incurs debt for an IMB's services.

The definition of "foreign national client " is anyone outside the U.S. OR a legal permanent resident (LPR) in the U.S. who utilizes the services of an IMB.

The definition of “U.S. client” is gender-neutral, and thus the law would apply to both gentlemen U.S. clients seeking foreign lady nationals, and lady U.S. clients seeking foreign gentlemen nationals.

The definition does NOT say just U.S. citizens living in the U.S. Thus, the law would seem to apply to a U.S. citizen working abroad in a foreign country.


Q #3: Will this law really be enforced and, if so, how?

Answer: It remains to be seen exactly how this law will actually be enforced and how vigorously and quickly. (There is a 60 day waiting period before the law’s provisions take effect, meaning early March 2006.)

On its face, the broker provisions of the law delegate enforcement to the Justice Dept, and thus the U.S. Attorneys Offices and the FBI. It appears that a broker will first receive a "citation” for violation followed by a Notice of Hearing for an “agency hearing on the record”. This may be an immigration judge at the various immigration courts around the country or possibly before a federal magistrate. But that part will become more clear as time passes.

There are civil and criminal penalties on the broker for violations. There are penalties also on “any person” for “misuse of the information”, that is on those who use or disclose the U.S. client’s background information without consent, or who use it to harass or intimidate anyone.

It is important to note that this law does not replace state laws, but supplements them. The law states explicitly that it does NOT “pre-empt” or supercede any rights, penalties, remedies or enforcement under any state law.


Q #4: Does this law apply to "U.S. citizens " only?

Answer: No. The law applies NOT to "U.S. citizens " but to “U.S. clients”, which is broadly defined as a U.S. citizen OR any person residing in the U.S. Thus, "U.S. clients " are required to comply with this law, and supply the mandated background information and documents.

It should be noted that the definition of "U.S. client " does NOT include foreign citizens, who appear to be exempt from the background information. However, another provision of this law called " "Limitation on Disclosure " appears to prohibit IMBs from providing personal contact information of a foreign lady to any "person or entity other than a United States client. "


Q #5: Does this law apply to U.S. brokers and agencies only?

Answer: The simple and quick answer is: yes, the law applies only to U.S. companies owned and operated in the U.S., (even if they just happen to have a matchmaker subsidiary or sub-division abroad.) It would likely be very difficult at best to enforce this law on a “foreign company”, with full operations and staff abroad and foreign-owners (or a U.S. owner who is offshore).

But before foreign owners celebrate their “free pass”, there are some complications. For example, the law’s definition of IMB is NOT limited to a U.S. company. (It says ANY company WHETHER OR NOT organized under U.S. law.)

“Foreign national client” and “U.S. client” definitions are also NOT limited to those who deal with a U.S. company only. What about a foreign company which advertises in the U.S., and displays a website hosted by a U.S. server with a U.S. URL? Or which otherwise actively solicits U.S. customers and derives most of their revenue from U.S. customers? Or who use a U.S. payment processor such as PayPay, partnered with Wells Fargo Bank (U.S. bank)? Or who have a U.S. P.O. Box or U.S. address on their website or who use an authorized sales agent or sales rep. in the U.S.? What about the applicability of federal mail fraud and wire fraud laws to overseas companies under “long-arm” statutes?

One knowledgeable person I spoke with takes this view: In a special case where it may be warranted, this law can POSSIBLY be enforced on a foreign owner (or a U.S. owner living overseas) as follows: A citation is issued for a known broker violation to the owner, and he is convicted in “absentia”, with the record so noted. When he tries to visit or re-enter the U.S., USCIS officers at Port of Entry enforce the conviction on him by apprehension.

Another problematic issue for the foreign owner (or U.S. owner living overseas) is the Consular Interview for the visa. Under this law, the Officer is required to ask the lady if they met through an IMB (as broadly defined in that law). IF the answer is YES, he MUST ask if the IMB provided the lady with all the background client information on the U.S. client and secured her signed written release before the couple communicated. If NOT, then the Officer presumably has the discretion to DENY issuance of the visa because of the broker violation (even though it was a foreign company).


Q #6: Does this law focus on the brokers and agencies only, or does it also apply to the gentlemen customers?

Answer: The law focuses on the IMBs and their obligations and penalties. There are no explicit penalties in this law on the U.S. client in dealing with the IMB, if he makes misrepresentations, falsehoods or submits false information. Remember though that this law does NOT pre-empt or over-ride your state law. So if the information the U.S. client submitted to the IMB was false under a signed certification or affidavit, then state law penalties for perjury and false information could apply.

It would seem though that no additional liabilities attach to the IMB if it was the U.S. client who submitted false information. Similarly, if the IMB did anything wrong, nothing in the law seems to penalize the U.S. client for that. In other words, the IMB and the U.S. client are each responsible for their own liabilities, not the other’s.

Keep in mind that the above applies only at the IMB stage of the couple’s communication and relationship. Once the gentleman is serious about the lady and chooses to file a U.S. K-1 Fiancée Visa petition with Immigration, he MUST certify that all information supplied by him in his petition package is truthful, under penalty of federal perjury: up to $25,000 fine and 5 years in federal prison.


Q #7: How, when and to whom do I, as a U.S. client gentlemen customer of a romance agency, company or correspondence website defined as an IMB under the new law, provide the required client background information or documents, such as criminal background, domestic violence history and prior orders, and so on?

Answer: According to this new law, this information or documentation is supplied by the U.S. client directly to the IMB agency or company at the time the the U.S. client signs up for and purchases the services of the IMB. At this time, there is no prescribed or pre-fabricated U.S. government form. The IMB is responsible for collecting and gathering this information or documentation from each U.S. client, storing it, translating it to the primary language of the foreign national client and securing from her a signed, written consent as to that specific U.S. client BEFORE the U.S. client can obtain her "person contact information " or enjoy a social meeting with her.

IMBs will probably develop and make available either electronically on their website or via E-Mail, Regular Mail or Fax, or in their office, a client background information questionnaire of some type for U.S. clients to fill out and otherwise respond to, if the both IMB and U.S. client wish to comply with this law.


Q #8: How the “Buyer-Seller” public reacting to this law so far?
Answer: It is always risky to categorize or label peoples’ response to this law. Of course, it is obvious that each person is individual and thinks for himself. Yet, in the brief few days of this new law, the "buyer & seller " public seems to divide into roughly into 4 groups:

1) THE DISBELIEVERS – These people may still be in a state of “denial”, and probably need to reflect quietly and read this law.


2) THE NEIGH-SAYERS – These may be people who underestimate this law, depreciate its potential effect, and almost “pooh-pooh” it. They take the view that the new law just means that everybody has to give up a little more information, and that it won’t have much real impact, or that it will take Uncle Sam years to enforce it, so it doesn’t really matter all that much. (We hope that they are right, but are not optimistic about that.)

3) THE DOOM-SAYERS – This group sees a monumental change in the landscape of international romance and the visa process: Brokers, agencies, tour groups, and correspondence websites leaving the business, and U.S. customers and foreign ladies basically “scared off” by suffocating document requirements, etc. For this group, this new law might be a combination of a tsunami, earthquake and asteroid hitting all at once, a “romance Armageddon”. (We fear that this may turn out to be only a small exaggeration.). A subset of this group are the RUN & HIDE group who will move overseas or underground to escape the clutches of this law, or at least will try.

4) THE "REALISTS " –This group is reading this law closely and attempting to try and comply with it as best they can cost-effectively, and thinking about some imaginative options, including but not only, use of release and consent forms on webpages, on the Internet, and via electronic forms, etc.

Frankly, it may well be that some people (sellers) will likely leave the business, go underground or go overseas. And some businesses will choose to violate the law until they are caught.

Bottom line: We will all experience and “live and learn” exactly what will happen as the law is actually rolled out.

Copyright©, 2006. All Rights Reserved. Gary Bala

Hmmmm, Gary good info, but self generated questions and answers seems self serving. I made several comments and questions but it has not merit your attention. I'll try again.

1. If one has to comply with the law requirements to meet a lady how would or where would they provide the information. If I remember, you have to provide the following:

Every state of residence since the age of 18;

— Current or previous marriages as well as how and when they terminated;

— Information on children under 18

— Any arrest or conviction related to controlled substances, alcohol or prostitution, making no distinction on arrests not leading to conviction;

— Any court orders, including temporary restraining orders

— Any arrest or conviction for crimes ranging from "homicide " to "child neglect ";

— Any arrest or conviction for "similar activity in violation of Federal, State or local criminal law "

Gary's Blog: